Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: English vs Greek

Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: English vs Greek

Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: English vs Greek

What is the lake of fire?  Many Christians equate the term with the doctrine of eternal torment in hell.  They sometimes call it being “separated” from God’s presence.

In the previous blog, Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Sin Wins, I addressed the first of Chan’s three points regarding the “open gates” in Revelation.  Today, I’ll address Chan’s second point:

Second, there’s nothing in the text that says the lake of fire is intended to purify the wicked.

Although there is much to be said about the lake of fire, what it is, and more importantly what it isn’t, this blog will only focus on Chan’s claim.  Is it true that in the book of Revelation (the only book of the Bible that uses the phrase “lake of fire”) there is nothing to support the idea that its intended use is to purify the wicked?

First of all, this is a loaded question, like the question “When did you stop beating your wife?”  Chan puts words in the mouths of Christian universalists by including in his question the unqualified statement, “the lake of fire is intended to purify the wicked”.  If I were to leave that statement alone, then Chan and others who agree with him could say that Christian universalists believe there are two ways to be saved, by believing in Jesus or by the lake of fire.  They can then dismiss anything and everything thereafter, because they are sure (and rightly so) that Jesus is the only way to be “saved”.  So before I attempt to answer Chan’s argument, I’d like to clarify that Christian universalists do not believe the lake of fire “saves” anyone.  The work of Christ is what accomplishes salvation.

Now, on to the question.  I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, if one reads the scriptures in the modern English translations only, then he or she will likely NOT see much evidence to connect the idea of purification to the lake of fire.  In English, we read, “lake of fire burning with brimstone”, but in Greek, we read, “limnhn tou purov kai qeiou”.

I’m really not trying to get over-technical with this.  It is important that we look at each word, in order to better understand “the Revelation of Jesus Christ”.  The first word, “limnhn” is translated into English as “lake”.  The root word for “limnhn” is “limen”, which means “harbor” and it is associated with the nearness of the shore.  The second word “tou” is translated into English as “of”.  In Greek, “tou” means “this”, “that”, or “these” – a definite article.  The third word, “purov” is translated into English as “fire” and it can also be translated as “burn”.  The word “purov” (and Hebrew equivalent) is used elsewhere in scripture as something other than a literal burning fire.  Here are a few examples:

1. in testing precious metals for purity (1 Pet. 5:4), used to aid a metaphor about faith

2. as a metaphor for kindness toward enemies (Rom. 12:20)

3. as a metaphor (Rev. 3:18) for purification, in reference to spiritual riches

4. the visible manifestation of the Spirit of God (Ex. 3:2, Acts 2:3)

5. the eyes of the Alpha and Omega (Rev. 1:14)

6. regarding salvation “saved through fire” (1 Cor. 3:15)

The word “kai” in English is “and”, and in Greek it is a conjunction that can mean “also, even, indeed, but”.  Finally, the word “qeiou” is translated into English as “brimstone”.  In Greek, this is a very interesting word, “theion”, which is defined as “divine incense, because burning brimstone was regarded as having power to purify, and to ward off disease”.  The root word is “theios”, which means “God”.

If we put this all together, here’s what we get:

In the nearness of the shore, a harbor that metaphorically “burns” is associate with testing, kindness, the Spirit of God, and salvation.  Indeed, the incense of God has the power to purify.

I’m not making this up, people.  It’s all there, for whoever wants to study something other than church-approved doctrine-proofed publications.  This view of the lake of fire is also consistent with another scripture in Revelation:

…he also shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, that hath been mingled unmixed in the cup of His anger, and he shall be tormented in fire and brimstone before the holy messengers, and before the Lamb (14:10)

The Greek word which is horribly translated in English as “tormented” is “basanizo“, which is defined as, “to test (metals) by the touchstone, which is a black siliceous stone used to test the purity of gold or silver by the colour of the streak produced on it by rubbing it with either metal”.  This is not “separated from God’s presence” at all; the scripture specifically states that this testing takes place “before the Lamb”.

I don’t think that the lake of fire is jolly butterflies, flowers, and gumdrops.  The warnings in scripture should be taken seriously.  They are there for a reason.  But I also don’t think that we should ditch the glorious truth that “love never fails” and “with God nothing is impossible” based on English translations and the traditions of men.

Needless to say, I really don’t understand why Chan sees “nothing in the text” to support a redemptive lake of fire.  It’s there for those “who have eyes to see”.

Next blog in this series: Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: In This Life

Comments
  • Lanny A. Eichert November 2, 2011 at 5:36 am

    εἰς τὴν λίμνην τοῦ πυρὸς τὴν καιομένην ἐν τῷ θείῳ

    The second word “tou” is translated into English as “of”. In Greek, “tou” means “this”, “that”, or “these” – a definite article.

    τοῦ πυρὸς is Neuter Singular Genitive. Genitive Case is the case of description and as such the case itself carries the meaning “of” by either the noun, the pronoun, or the article. It is a lake described by fire: Lake of Fire is a proper translation. You only show, as you confessed, that you have no formal Koine Greek language training, but you continue to westle with words without knowledge.

    Now you wrote: Christian universalists do not believe the lake of fire “saves” anyone. The work of Christ is what accomplishes salvation. Yet somehow you think they will have a change of heart while they burn there?

    Even if they did and could repent and believe, they still have an immortal corruptible body which disqualifies them from entering the city. Since they cannot die, they cannot be resurrected with an incorruptible body.

    What’s your solution? There’s nothing written about a third resurrection, don’t you know that?

    • Lanny A. Eichert November 2, 2011 at 5:55 am

      RESURRECTION. That’s the subject. But whose? General resurrection? Does the Bible ever use “general” to describe it? No, but it does use “first” in the Revelation 20: 5. Have you noticed “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” 1 Corinthians 15: 50 and “the dead shall be raised incorruptible” in verse 52? Look further 54 – 56: “So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption … then … Death is swallowed up in victory. O death … thy sting? … The sting … is sin.” SO RESURRECTION HERE IN 1 CORINTHIANS 15 MEANS NO SIN AND NO DEATH, BECAUSE THAT’S THE NATURE OF INCORRUPTION. Saints are CHANGED, that is, the nature of sin is removed along with its effect, death. So what about 21 – 23 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. As I had previously been emphatic to state the “all” belongs ONLY to “they that are Christ’s” and only “in Christ” because this is only a resurrection to incorruption.

      A view of the Revelation 20: 11 – 15 judgment scene contains sinners in their sin cast into the Lake of Fire. Notice that a “general” resurrection is not stated in this Scripture as having happened, but the dead standing before God must, if they’re standing, be living again as verse 5 said they would after a thousand years. I think that’s called a resurrection of the dead or as Christ John 5: 29 called it “the resurrection of damnation.” This resurrection differs from the first in that sin is still present in them both before and after the judgment as per 21: 8. This is a resurrection to corruption, a seemingly NO CHANGE resurrection other than the body cannot cease to function. It still has eyes, hands, and feet.

      So how are you getting these people into a body that can enter the gates of the city some day?

    • admin November 2, 2011 at 3:45 pm

      These questions can’t be answered adequately using Revelation text alone. Revelation chronology a la fundamentalism causes you to read into it. Where does it say that people in the lake of fire have immortal corruptible bodies? Where does it say God cannot make them incorruptible? Paul letters to the Corinthians say more about this than Revelation.

      • Lanny A. Eichert November 2, 2011 at 5:43 pm

        How can sin(s) dwell in an incorruptible body?

      • Lanny A. Eichert November 2, 2011 at 8:18 pm

        Revelation chronology a la fundamentalism causes you to read into it

        On the contrary, I read in the actual text the words a/the thousand years six times and believe it to be just exactly what those words literally mean all six times defining the context. You on the contrary read INTO them some OTHER entirely different meaning. Who’s the culprit distorting Scripture and context? Why are you choosing a figurative meaning over a literal when the literal will work just fine? (And the literal works just fine for the rich man and Lazarus, as well.)

        Just below, November 2, 2011 at 5:39 am, I gave you proof of the Israelite expectation of the literal Millennial Messianic reign of Christ on the earth as prophesied. There’s plenty more support for this kind of unique Reign of Christ: a literal seed of King David on earth.

        How can sin(s) dwell in an incorruptible body?

        HOW?

  • Lanny A. Eichert November 2, 2011 at 5:39 am

    I would like to appeal to the whole of Isaiah chapters eleven and sixty-five as descriptive of ONLY the literal Millennial Messianic reign of Christ on the earth in contrast to the New Heavens and the New Earth of the Revelation chapters twenty-one and twenty-two. My study began with a search of “not hurt in all my holy mountain.” By that phrase, we have (#1) The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. AND The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD. Such graphic descriptions have not yet occurred on this earth; as graphic as they are, they are limited to only a literal meaning; and they are yet for a future fulfillment, including their further descriptions.

    In further description (#2) physical death shall be a sure occurance, but look how. But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not. Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not. There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

    Furthermore (#3) it shall be ruled by Jesus. And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there.

    (#4) Israel in all of its twelve tribes shall be regathered. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. And there shall be an highway for the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria; like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt.

    I quoted both chapters in each of the four descriptions unique to only this special reign of Christ.
    At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. Deuteronomy 19: 15
    That in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. Matthew 18: 16
    Isaiah’s prophecy, as the Word of God, is a joint authorship: God and Isaiah, and the entire burden belongs to God, Who makes no mistakes.

    For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.

    Though in the midst of death and dying of children and adults in their sins, there will be joy in the LORD and it will certainly be thought a new blessed environment because Jesus is at last reigning as King of the Jews and King of all the earth. Satan is bound in the abyss, yet men that are born during this Millennium continue to operate from their sinful nature and still need to be born again just like now.

    Will you acknowledge and own your total depravity and repair to Jesus as your only hope, nothing added?

  • Lanny A. Eichert November 2, 2011 at 5:48 am

    Although saints are resurrected incorruptible, the unregenerate are not so. They are raised in a body that houses their still corruptible sinful nature and since their sins have not been forgiven they stand before God in the Judgment with their sins still attached to them; and that is their condition when they are cast into the Lake of Fire. Their resurrection body is a body of corruption, a body of corruption that cannot ever again die.

    The saints before their resurrection were housed in corruptible bodies even though their sins had been forgiven and removed from them as far as the East is from the West. It takes physical death and resurrection to give them an incorruptible body and that is God’s best work for His saints. Is God capable of doing a BETTER work for those He has cast into the Lake of Fire? How can He give them a new resurrection body if they cannot physically or spiritually die again?

    Can God resurrect the dead from the Lake of Fire???

    I don’t think so. God cannot reconcile the twice dead. Here is something God cannot do. God cannot lie. He ends the Revelation with a populated Lake of Fire without any remedy that even He could provide: He boxed Himself into a corner, so to speak. He concluded the Revelation with this statement in 22: 11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

    Since they never die again, can God resurrect the dead from the Lake of Fire?

    • admin November 2, 2011 at 3:39 pm

      There is no death at some point. No one dead, therefore, no one to raise up.

      • Lanny A. Eichert November 2, 2011 at 6:10 pm

        The “some point” is among God’s people and it is accomplished by the resurrection of His saints. There is no other context.

        So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

        The resurrection of damnation results in sinners living in their sins. That’s death: The sting of death is sin, 1 Corinthians 15: 56a. That’s corruption.

        Verse 38, But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. To the seed of Abraham He gave an incorruptible immortal body, but not an incorruptible body to all others. God does expect us to use our heads when He declares the believers’ glory. We are to know the unbelievers’ condition is very wretched, not similar. He expects us to also know who the seed of Abraham is, for whom He made reconciliation, and know all others are lost as per His plan, realizing the vessels fitted for destruction are just that. He expects us to know that He has invested Greek words with special Gospel meanings that we are to appreciate beyond the wooden literal of “the Pharisees” that you people have become as you wrestle with His words.

        • admin November 3, 2011 at 1:11 am

          then how can it be said that death has no sting?

  • Lanny A. Eichert November 2, 2011 at 6:46 am

    Christian universalists do not believe the lake of fire “saves” anyone. The work of Christ is what accomplishes salvation. Yet somehow you think they will have a change of heart while they burn there? Who changes hearts? They can’t change their own hearts and God is not going to change their hearts for them; He never said He would. He made them for destruction.

    The fact is they became believers as soon as they died and found themselves in hell, but that wasn’t the faith that saves; it was only facing the facts of their rightfully deserved punishment. (We know that by the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16.) They still did not want that Man to reign over them and nothing after death will change their minds. Time will not work such a miracle. There is nothing in Scripture that developes a way for God to save the damned. If there was such by John 15: 15 God would have disclosed it. There’s no development of the possibility of repentance in Hell or the Lake of Fire anywhere in Scripture. There’s not an invitation given to any damned person in either place. You have to twist the contextuial chronology of the Revelation 22 and distort the contextual meaning of many other Scriptures to reverse the damnation of the wicked dead, but still you will not have a plan developed by God and revealled to man to get it done.

    Again, lastly, they have immortal corruptible resurrection bodies that cannot be made acceptable. God has revealled no means by which He would change them and John 15: 15 applies especially because we have 1 Corinthians 15 which is isolated to only saints.

    • admin November 2, 2011 at 3:36 pm

      Luke 16 is a parable.

      • Lanny A. Eichert November 2, 2011 at 6:19 pm

        So you, too, Alice?

        Parable or not, it still is filled with much information. The conduct of the formally rich man discloses his satisfaction with the justice of God: that he is righteously punished for not listening to Moses and the Prophets. That’s a confession of the Lordship of Christ.

        Now you are evidencing your LOW view of Scripture and discrediting and discounting Jesus’ words in addition to adding meanings to Scriptures that simply are not there. 1 Corinthians 15: 36 “Thou fool”

  • Lanny A. Eichert November 2, 2011 at 6:31 pm

    God has detailed no plan to save the dead from the Lake of Fire and you have to admit that is contrary to John 15: 15. Yet He STILL contrastingly closes the Revelation with:

    He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

  • Mary Vanderplas November 2, 2011 at 9:14 pm

    I agree that the pictures and warnings of judgment in these texts do not necessarily rule out God’s redemptive love being the last word. However, I don’t agree that “lake of fire” is a mistranslation of the Greek words that John uses in the texts or that these texts mean something less than that the destruction of the transcendent powers and exclusion of the unfaithful. The Greek words can reasonably be translated “lake of fire”; and, in the contexts in which John uses the expression (or something similar), it seems clear that the intended meaning of the image is the transcendent place of destruction, not testing or purification.

    In the case of Revelation 14:6-20, what is envisioned is God’s judgment on Christians who accommodate to the empire. The word translated “tormented,” when used in reference to people, means extreme distress. What is pictured here is not testing or purification, but the terror of God’s wrath against sin. While I think that this picture needs to be read in the light of God’s character revealed in Jesus (ruling out eternal torment), I don’t think that the Greek words can legitimately be translated as meaning “purification.” I think that the image John gives conveys harsh judgment.

    In the case of Revelation 19:17-21, what is pictured is the “last battle,” in which Christ and the heavenly army are opposed by both rebellious human beings and the transcendent powers of evil. Again, what is pictured is the defeat and destruction of the ultimate enemies of God and the judgment of rebellious humans. (The language and imagery John uses echo Ezekiel 39.) There is nothing here to suggest that John intended the words that are translated “lake of fire that burns with sulfur” (v. 20) to be something other than an image of destruction.

    Likewise, in Revelation 20:7-10, what is pictured is the ultimate defeat and destruction of Satan. Again, in context, the words translated “lake of fire and sulfur,” coupled with “they will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (v. 10), are an image of destruction, not of purification. And again, there are unmistakable parallels between John’s picture and the imagery he uses and the defeat of Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 39.

    In the case of the scene in Revelation 20:11-15, what John presents is a picture of the final judgment and separation that will take place at the end of age. The words “lake of fire” are here associated with the “second death” (vv. 14-15) – meaning that they are an image of ultimate rejection. (The image is picked up again in 21:8, with types of people who stand to be excluded being mentioned.)

    Even though I don’t agree that the words are a mistranslation and that what John is picturing here is a “redemptive lake of fire,” as opposed to a destructive one, I do think that there is sufficient evidence in Revelation – and even in several of the judgment texts themselves – of God’s (ultimately) redemptive purpose to at least not rule out that “love never fails.” In the case of the Revelation 14 text, for instance, some scholars point out that there are images and intimations here that suggest salvation – such as that the grain harvest (vv. 14-16) is the ingathering of the rest of humanity, in light of the church being described as the “first fruits” in verse 4. Also, as you point out, the scene of wrath and judgment here takes place in the presence of the Lamb – the One by whose life and death, redemption was accomplished. In the case of Revelation 19, the rejection of rebellious humans isn’t the “last word” that is given in John’s revelation: in 21:24-26, for example, the nations are pictured as part of the new creation. And while Death and Hades are pictured as being finally defeated and destroyed (20:14), it may well be that their victims are spared, protected by having their names written in the book of life, the book of grace (20:15).

    So, it may be that the judgment pictured in these texts is penultimate, that the mercy and grace of God does, finally, prevail in the life of every lost person. Still, though, I agree that the warnings of judgment are there for a reason. I would add that they shouldn’t be blunted by explaining away or softening the imagery of these texts, as I think you do. In any event, it seems clear that there is enough in Revelation to argue against holding fast to a view that rules out universal salvation.

    • admin November 4, 2011 at 11:40 pm

      People are warned against God’s judgment repeatedly throughout scripture. So I don’t take it lightly. God’s judgment results in righteousness. I don’t take that lightly either.

      • Mary Vanderplas November 5, 2011 at 6:33 am

        The issue isn’t the warnings of judgment in other texts and the goal of producing righteousness through repentance. It’s what these particular texts in Revelation mean and whether by translating/interpreting the imagery as other than images of final rejection/destruction the force of the warning John intended is blunted – which I think it is. But still, I can and do hope that the final reality is acceptance/inclusion for all; and I don’t think this can be ruled out even if Revelation were the only book of the Bible.

      • Mary Vanderplas November 5, 2011 at 9:06 pm

        You may be right about the judgment spoken of here being purification, not exclusion, though I still have a hard time, in light of the context and connections with apocalyptic pictures of the final end, seeing the imagery John uses here as redemptive. Nonetheless, the inclusiveness (of 21:3 in particular) is striking. The issue haunts me.

        • Lanny A. Eichert November 6, 2011 at 12:13 am

          You may flip-flop, Mary; I give you my permission. It’s well within your character as displayed in Alice’s blog for you to both agree with her while at the same time disagreeing with her. You’ve done that over and over. How you claim to be a Christian and yet blow in Alice’s hot air bending in her direction with the force of her wind is beyond me.

          A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. [James 1: 8]

          You wrote November 2, 2011 at 9:14 pm: The word translated “tormented,” when used in reference to people, means extreme distress. What is pictured here is not testing or purification, but the terror of God’s wrath against sin; but now November 5, 2011 at 9:06 pm you write: You may be right about the judgment spoken of here being purification ….” right after writing November 5, 2011 at 6:33 am 14 1/2 hours ago: The issue isn’t “… the goal of producing righteousness through repentance.”

          “I can and do hope that the final reality is acceptance/inclusion for all,” and that’s your downfall. Your hope isn’t what God has revealled and the sooner you two and the other readership realize it, the closer to truth you all will become.

          To “erase” hell and the Lake of Fire is to deny Christainity. You cease being a Christian when you put away eternal punishment. Eternal punishment is a fundamental of Christianity, so once you remove it you no longer have Christianity. The Mormons have essentially removed it, but they are Christians, so they say, but don’t you believe it, unless you want a Mormon for President of the United States of America.

          The touchstone doesn’t MAKE the metal good, it only VERIFIES whether it is good or bad. The touchstone does not purify anything; it is a litmus test. When a solution turns litmus paper strip blue it will not be changed no matter how many more litmus strips you apply to the solution. If you signed up for a college course subject of which you were ignorant and only took the exams without going to class and doing the class work, would the exams make you perfect? No, they’d prove you an idiot in that subject and in common sense.

          Use your sense, don’t discard it for false hope. Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. [Romans 4: 15] The judgment sentence is the wrath of God and it is punitive not remedial. The Revelation 14 passage is a clear demonstration of wrathful “eternal punishment” sourced in God. The Revelation 20 judgment has only one stated consummation: the Lake of Fire; and has only one class of persons judged: the dead, spiritually dead, these are all unbelievers, no saints among them. Not a single one there judged has their name written in the book of life and that is why it is open: to show they had never received Christ, not even for an instant. It along with the books of works shows their works and religiosity were insufficient for acquittal and rewards, thus justifying condemnation in the eternal Lake of Fire forever.

          “That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;” Ephesians 4: 14

          Here is a purpose clause for saints, but you all don’t seem to fit the “no more” and instead you all fit the bad part of the verse. That’s why I conclude you all in unbelief as hell-bound sinners devoid of the Christ you say you believe. [Also your eschatology is as foggy as a London fog.]

          • Mary Vanderplas November 6, 2011 at 11:23 am

            Your eschatology is a constructed program of end-time events based on a misreading of what is intended to be non-literal, non-objectifying language. In addition to violating the language of Revelation, it violates the structure of John’s composition, not to mention the character of God revealed in Jesus Christ. You conveniently reason away the texts that imply universal salvation; and you condemn everyone who doesn’t share your fundamentalist views.

            I have nothing more to say on the subject, Lanny. I think your eschatology is all wrong and that your approach to interpreting scripture(disregarding such “minor details” as the kind of literature, the context, the author’s purpose) leaves a lot to be desired.

            A transcendent power is, literally, thrown into a lake of fire (Revelation 20:14)…..hmmmm. Why sure, I’ll heed your advice to use my common sense….

          • Lanny A. Eichert November 6, 2011 at 1:47 pm

            Face the facts, Mary, your idea of last trhings leaves you without any substance. All you have is ideas, concepts, rather than actual events and your methods of interpretations have no checks and balances. It all leaves you “in a fog” just like your implied universal salvation. You want it that way so as to remove all agrument to the contrary. That is one of the marks of cultic practice: make it so complicated that few, if any, will examine and find the errors. Satan is the head of the “fog” cult.

            Fundamentalists know what we believe. God has detailed salvation as only available in this life. Jesus comes for His Church to take them to His Father’s house where He’ll return in seven years after He takes back posession of the eath from Satan. Then He returns with them and His Old Testament saints to the earth to set up the promised Davidic kingdom with Satan imprisoned. After that He’ll let him loose a little season and then destroy both him and his deceived ones. Finally he judges all unbelievers and prepares the final blessed new heavens and earth for His saints and angels. We know what we believe because Jesus said [John 15: 15] I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

            You and your kind are NOT Jesus’ friends: that’s why you know nothing of substance. Burn in hell. I’ve tried to insite you all to seek God’s literal salvation, but you’ve all refused it. Beg God to rebirth you before it is too late. As of now you all are the devil’s children, not God’s and you all need to be born again, only this time into God’s family. If you aren’t you’ll only burn in hell.

  • Lanny A. Eichert November 3, 2011 at 2:55 am

    admin says: November 3, 2011 at 1:11 am
    then how can it be said that death has no sting?

    Answer:
    (#1) Saints are ushered into the bliss of Christ’s welcoming presence upon death.
    (#2) Sinners are ushered into hell fire to await judgment and the Lake of Fire without remedy.

    Which prospect stings: #1 or #2?

    (#1) Saints are resurrected to life.
    (#2) Sinners are resurrected to damnation.

    Which prospect stings: #1 or #2?

    • Lanny A. Eichert November 3, 2011 at 3:10 am

      The sting of death is sin. The attached sin nature along with its attached sins makes the sinner subject to the Great White Throne Judgment of Christ and the resultant unavoidable sentence into the Lake of Fire without remedy. This is evident from the Revelation 20.

      The sting of death is nowhere present with the saint, because his sins were gone in the new birth and he is instantly changed and raised incorruptible without the sin nature and without sins: without sin he therefore is not subject to the Great White Throne Judgment of Christ and the Lake of Fire. This is evident from 1 Corinthians 15 and the Revelation 20.

      • admin November 8, 2011 at 4:42 pm

        If the majority of people suffer the “sting” of death eternally, then Paul was mistaken when he asked the rhetorical questions – “O death, where is thy sting, O death, where is thy victory?” According to you, death has tremendous victory and sting over the very people Jesus Christ came to “seek and save” (the lost). You have your reasons, but none of your reasons neither now, nor in the day of judgment will be able to stand in the light of His glory.

        • Lanny A. Eichert November 8, 2011 at 8:06 pm

          I TOLD you that you have a problem with taking things from their context, didn’t I? 1 Corinthians 15 is all about the redeemed and is NOT addressing the lost in any of its 58 verses, 12 & 34 {possibly} excepted as the human source of the problem being corrected. When will you get that through your thick head?

          You are forcing the text to handle a subject not addressed by the whole text. Quit it, Alice and go home and go to bed. Better yet, just go back to having children and keeping house and leave the theology to men. You’re supposed to keep silence in the church any way. Be obedient, dear child.

          • admin November 8, 2011 at 9:17 pm

            You are too smart a man to be resorting to derogation. :::sigh::: (If only your mind were as open as your mouth.)

  • Lanny A. Eichert November 3, 2011 at 4:42 am

    torment, ἐν βασάνοις
    1) a touchstone, which is a black siliceous stone used to test the purity of gold or silver by the colour of the streak produced on it by rubbing it with either metal
    2) the rack or instrument of torture by which one is forced to divulge the truth
    3) torture, torment, acute pains
    a) of the pains of a disease
    b) of those in hell after death

    Alice says: The Greek word which is horribly translated in English as “tormented” is “basanizo“, which is defined as, ”to test (metals) by the touchstone, which is a black siliceous stone used to test the purity of gold or silver by the colour of the streak produced on it by rubbing it with either metal”. This is not “separated from God’s presence” at all; the scripture specifically states that this testing takes place “before the Lamb”.

    TESTING doesn’t MAKE the metal good, it only VERIFIES whether it is good or bad. The second definition is just as real as 3 b, in which the torment/torture forces the truth to be divulged that Jesus Christ is Lord and that’s why I claim they become believers the moment they die. Nevertheless, the testing proves these people are evil and will always be evil no matter how many times they are tested over and over.

    This testing takes place “before the Lamb” is wrong, Alice, and needs to be corrected to this TORMENT takes place “before the Lamb” and then you’d be right. It is torment that is meant by this word. They are “before” the Lord, seeing His Lordship by their plight, but remaining just as nonsubmissive and rebellious as they were standing before His Great White Throne.

    …he also shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, that hath been mingled unmixed in the cup of His anger, and he shall be tormented in fire and brimstone before the holy messengers, and before the Lamb (14:10)

    Please, Alice, recognize the WRATH of God in this context requires torment not testing. The idea of this testing you want to suggest is that of the approval of the metal sought. Wrath, unmixed, anger. All three words require the meaning be punitive rather than a seeking to approve. Your interpretive skills show a deliberate tendency to favor a preconceived idea before the context. That’s a BAD Bible study method.

  • Lanny A. Eichert November 4, 2011 at 4:37 am

    From local Utah news, Alice, see how a preference or prejudice distorts one’s ability to understand the simple literal interpretation of the Scriptures:

    The question of a Christian response to same-sex attraction became paramount to Jimmy Creech, one of the conference’s featured speakers and a former United Methodist minister, when a member of his congregation came out as gay.

    Creech, now retired and living in North Carolina, studied various translations and interpretations of the Bible’s passages about homosexuality. He concluded that the translations “had been botched and dangerously distorted,” he wrote, “and came to believe that discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people is morally wrong.”

    Since then, Creech has performed several same-gender commitment ceremonies, which caused the United Methodist Church to revoke his ordination credentials.

    Alice, this has happened to you also, but in a different respect. You now see jumping out at you all of the “mistranslations” that have “promoted” eternal punishment and your conclusion also is that the translations had been botched and dangerously distorted and you came to believe eternal punishment is morally wrong for the translators and the institutional church to propogate by the way they chose and prejudiced words.

    Both Mary and I have shown you your errors and you’d be a whole lot better if you’d just ignore the subject and return to orthodoxy without any further discussion. Just DROP the subject and go on with your college English subjects as blogging material. Retreat this subject to your own private meditations and seek to reconcile your errors with proper Biblical exegesis. Scrub the Rob Bell subject material from your blog site as well. You need the private time to sort this out.

    Learn English.

    • admin November 4, 2011 at 11:32 pm

      Thanks for the advice, but I don’t think you have me or my motivations figured out. Homosexuality and Jimmy Creech – this is irrelevent. Discriminating against any people group is wrong. The blog was created to address those subjects which have been relegated to private meditations by orthodoxy for over 1500 years. I could keep this blog going for the rest of my life and never fully address the situation. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, not English.

      • Lanny A. Eichert November 7, 2011 at 3:20 am

        εἰς τὴν λίμνην τοῦ πυρὸς τὴν καιομένην ἐν τῷ θείῳ [19: 20]

        Alice, as per the very first post above {November 2, 2011 at 5:36 am} you do NOT even know the significance of the Genitive Case in the Greek of τοῦ πυρὸς, nor the significance of the direct article, and certainly NOT the context of chapter 14 in English as well as Greek.

        DISQUALIFIED, DISQUALIFIED, Alice is disqualified in BOTH languages. As I said, Alice

        Learn English.

        εἰς τὴν λίμνην τοῦ πυρὸς τὴν καιομένην ἐν τῷ θείῳ
        into the lake of the fire which [lake] is being kindled by [the instrumentality of] the brimstone.
        τὴν καιομένην is an accusative feminine singular present tense passive voice participle and agrees with τὴν λίμνην which is also accusative feminine singular.

        I’m not making this up, people. REALLY, Alice, REALLY???

        If YOU didn’t make it up, then WHO did? Is this straight from Rob Bell’s book, or from what author did you get it? You already confessed that you didn’t originate it, so who did? Give me a name and a source. Whose hot air is this?

        • admin November 7, 2011 at 4:53 pm

          http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/AHT7966.0001.001/671?rgn=full+text;view=image;q1=brimstone
          http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/AHT7966.0001.001/661?rgn=full+text;view=image;q1=brimstone
          http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/AHT7966.0001.001/662?rgn=full+text;view=image;q1=brimstone
          Greek/English Lexicon – not affiliated with modern Christian publishers, and therefore not defining the words according to etymology that developed hundreds of years AFTER the original word usage. In other words, this is what the words meant at the time the New Testament was written.

          • Mary Vanderplas November 7, 2011 at 9:48 pm

            The background of these texts – i.e., 19:17-21 and 20:7-10 – is Ezekiel 38 and 39, the traditional picture of the defeat and destruction of Gog and Magog. Whatever “fire” and “brimstone” might mean in other places, in Ezekiel 38 and 39 – and in these texts in John’s Revelation – they are images of destruction, though not to be taken literally.

          • Lanny A. Eichert November 7, 2011 at 9:59 pm

            Alice, the Liddell and Scott Greek/English Lexicon is a NINETEENTH century work containing etymology that developed hundreds of years after the original word usage. They lived right in the thick of the century that produced the Mormon cult and the Seventh Day Adventist cult. They also lived before the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls and modern textual criticism.

            You still didn’t answer my question: If YOU didn’t make it up, then WHO did? Is this straight from Rob Bell’s book, or from what author did you get it? You already confessed that you didn’t originate it, so who did? Who steered you to Liddell and Scott? Give me name(s) and source(s).

            • admin November 8, 2011 at 12:18 am

              Lanny, this is not the only resource that draws a parallel between brimstone and purification, it just happens to be the one I referenced for this particular blog. Do your own homework.

            • admin November 8, 2011 at 9:15 am

              I can’t believe that you, of all people, are talking about “modern textual criticism”. You don’t even recognize a single Biblical mistranslation, from what I have seen so far. If you want to talk about modern textual criticism, then you might try considering some of their finds regarding the accuracy of modern translations!

          • Lanny A. Eichert November 7, 2011 at 10:18 pm

            Mary, 39: 17 – 20 the eagles will literally feast on the bodies and blood of the slain as so graphically described as to not be a figure, but a literal event, just as literal as 39: 25 – 29 the regathering of the Israelites into their literal land and their national conversion to Jesus Christ the King of the Jews.

          • Lanny A. Eichert November 7, 2011 at 10:54 pm

            And, yes, Mary, Gog and Magog appear TWICE. In 19 they are totally destroyed only to arise again in 20. During the literal Millennial Reign of Christ unregenerate (natural) children will be born many of whom will never convert to Christ, but will be deceived by Satan to wage war against God; and as such are figuratively identified as Gog and Magog to be totally destroyed. They will then be literally resurrected with all the rest of the wicked to stand in judgment before the Great White Throne and receive their eternal sentence in the literal Lake of Fire.

          • Lanny A. Eichert November 8, 2011 at 3:51 am

            Luke 17: 29 & Revelation 9: 17 & 18
            But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
            And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.

            Alice, does purification fit here in these three verses? If not, why do you force it into these others? Clearly the use of the word is connectable to God’s wrath and destruction. Yes, it can be a figure of divine wrath as well as a literal furious burning, but only the context tells which.

            Stop violating the context for the sake of your supposition. Stop showing your stupid rebellion.

          • Mary Vanderplas November 8, 2011 at 6:04 am

            Ezekiel’s language and imagery is symbolic. So is John’s. John isn’t presenting a chronology of end-time events. He is giving a series of pictures that point to the final end and the consummation of God’s purposes. To interpret these texts literally and from them to construct a chronology of end-time events is to misinterpret them.

          • Mary Vanderplas November 8, 2011 at 6:07 am

            Since when does the fact that language is graphic mean that it must be a literal description??

          • Lanny A. Eichert November 8, 2011 at 8:43 am

            Born blind & still, Mary. Still blowing smoke; your pipe is still lit, I see. You have no more substance in your Revelation than in your Prophets, so what does it profit the first century Christians since your Revelation gives them nothing more of a hope than your Prophets did? You revealled nothing new to them. You gave them nothing substantial, no additional anchor for their hope.

            They had expected Jesus to return in their life time and being disappointed Jesus discloses the events that must happen before and after He returns. That’s John 15: 15; Mary, but you cannot see that because you don’t have spiritual sight. You must be born again before you can be Jesus’ friend to whom He will show you what the Father and He are doing.

          • Mary Vanderplas November 8, 2011 at 7:22 pm

            You continue to read into texts what simply isn’t there. John’s Jesus does not say that he reveals a certain body of information (much less “Lanny’s imagined end-times program”) to his disciples. The point isn’t that he reveals certain knowledge about God – which isn’t specified – but that in his person and work he is the revelation of God.

            Must you always resort to belittling people when they challenge your views or question your reasoning?

          • Lanny A. Eichert November 8, 2011 at 7:40 pm

            Mary, you mean to tell me that you cannot even believe the Gospels are literal accounts of historical facts, a chronology, even a broken chronology of Jesus’ earthly words? Yes, knowing from previous experience I can expect that of you. I pity you, because Matthew 4: 4 doesn’t mean literal “words” for you since there aren’t any such thing as literal words.

            Conclusion: you are an unbeliever who’s hell-bound and lost. If you don’t respond to the literal love of God in literal words before you leave this life, you will certainly burn in the Lake of Fire without remedy.

            You at least for a while saw Alice’s mistake of violating contexts that I wished you’d go further toward truth, but that’s not likely. What’s most likely is your eternally lost estate. Pity.

          • Mary Vanderplas November 8, 2011 at 9:21 pm

            I was talking in particular about your misinterpretation of John 15:15.

            You know full well that I believe that the Gospels are based on real historical events. I’ve discussed before – at length – the process by which the Gospels came to be written. I’m not going to go there again, except to say that the Gospel writers were not simply reporters who recorded the events and teachings of Jesus – biographers of Jesus of Nazareth.

            Don’t talk to me about not violating the context of a text. You are constantly wrenching texts out of context and twisting them to support your preconceived ideas about the end times and the final destiny of human beings.

          • Lanny A. Eichert November 9, 2011 at 2:58 am

            Jn 15: 15 Mary says: November 8, 2011 at 7:22 pm The point isn’t that he reveals certain knowledge about God – which isn’t specified – but that in his person and work he is the revelation of God. So Jesus’ person, work, and revelation of God is all non-specific? It is just He is a revelation, a non-specific revelation? You’re blowing smoke as always. Who can understand you?

          • Mary Vanderplas November 9, 2011 at 5:25 am

            Nothing is said in this text (John 15:15) about the content of what Jesus reveals. The point isn’t that he reveals certain information about God. It is that his whole life, death, and resurrection is a revelation of God’s saving love. What is so hard to understand about that?

  • Lanny A. Eichert November 5, 2011 at 12:38 am

    I could keep this blog going for the rest of my life and never fully address the situation.

    No doubt about that,seeing you have a good imagination not bridled by the Scriptures or reason.

  • Lanny A. Eichert November 6, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

    Revelation 22: 11

    That’s God’s final revelation: STILL. The eternal state of the wicked and the just.

  • Bob November 7, 2011 at 4:36 am

    Hello to the administrator of this blog…Alice, is it? My personal story is long and my life has been pretty well crippled…but anyway, after reading what “Larry” has to say, I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate you doing what you do here on your site/blog. It’s important to me. I appreciate it more than you could ever know. Thank you very much.

    • admin November 7, 2011 at 4:27 pm

      His name is Lanny. Thanks for the comments/encouragement. It is my pleasure to write this blog. I wish I had time to write every single day…

    • Lanny A. Eichert November 7, 2011 at 5:21 pm

      My mother, father, aunts, uncles, and cousins are going or have already gone to hell; yet my life has NOT been pretty well crippled though they’ve with hostility rejected my pleading Gospel and I know there will be no remedy ever for them.

      a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. {Matthew 10: 36 – 38} You don’t want Christ if you don’t want heartbreak.

      • Sarah November 25, 2011 at 12:04 pm

        “lanny” writes :My mother, father, aunts, uncles, and cousins are going or have already gone to hell; yet my life has NOT been pretty well crippled though they’ve with hostility rejected my pleading Gospel and I know there will be no remedy ever for them.

        “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. “For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? “Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:1-5)

        Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn others, or it will all come back against you. Forgive others, and you will be forgiven. Luke 6:37

  • Lanny A. Eichert November 7, 2011 at 11:32 pm

    The child shall die an hundred years old {Isaiah 65: 20} in the Left Behind series is interestingly developed during the literal Millennial Reign of Christ showing how the Gog and Magog new generation arise from the Reign which begins with a whole earth population of saints without a single unconverted sinner.

    Bob, there’s a heartbreaker for you: just imagine being a parent of a willful child who refuses to believe Christ while having Him literally present on the same earth in Jerusalem, the capitol of Israel. He’s got only one hundred years from birth to the date, hour, minute, and second to believe or die on his hundredth birthday.

    You think your life has been pretty well crippled, what about their’s?

  • Lanny A. Eichert November 8, 2011 at 3:08 am

    Alice, the lot of it is my question:
    Here’s what we get: In the nearness of the shore, a harbor that metaphorically “burns” is associate with testing, kindness, the Spirit of God, and salvation. Indeed, the incense of God has the power to purify.

    Who steered you to Liddell and Scott? Who steered you to make such improper word connections to support bad doctrine and taught you bad Bible study habits?

    You know you’re avoiding my question.

    • admin November 8, 2011 at 9:10 am

      lake – root word limen – #3040 Strong’s, harbor/haven Strong’s Greek Dictionary p151
      kindness is already explained in the blog
      Spirit of God – from theion also explained in the blog
      salvation – association, see biblical references in the blog

      Liddell and Scott – if you google “lake of fire and brimstone” you will see this reference

      I’m not avoiding your question, Lanny.

      “Who steered you to make such improper word connections…” – the apostle John did. Nothing improper about it at all, though. I am looking at the Greek, not the modern (biased) translation of English.

      If you do your homework, if you search through non-biased sources, if you read some ancient non-Biblical Greek (Homer’s Iliad for example http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/iliad.html) you will see how different the modern English translation of Greek is from the original intended meaning sometimes.

      Have you noticed how I have not demanded to know your expertise in Greek? 50 years ago, such a question may have held more weight. Now, it no longer matters, given the availability of resources online, the huge base of knowledge from which one can make sense of the Greek without the help of so-called “experts”.

      I don’t understand why you keep asking me to prove things that can be readily discovered with a little effort on your part.

      • Lanny A. Eichert November 8, 2011 at 3:01 pm

        ancient Greek is up to 1700 years removed from common Greek

        • admin November 8, 2011 at 4:58 pm

          Basic education for writers of Koine Greek included the ancient Greek classics. Homer was the textbook, the foundation for New Testament vocabulary.

          • Lanny A. Eichert November 8, 2011 at 7:28 pm

            That sucks means entirely something other than he sucks in modern English over the last fifty years that I’ve been alive. The latter refers to oral homosexual activity and the former to a lack of expectation. Likewise Greek changed with newer meanings also and besides that the Christian Scripture writers also attached new meanings to Greek words that hadn’t previously been associated. Why are there classifications of Greek like Ancient, Classical, Attic, and Koine if there aren’t differences to be recognized? Don’t go rushing off half cocked, Alice.

            Your problem remains that of violating the context for the sake of your supposition: you intentionally distort meanings to prove your point and will not let the context dictate the meaning.

  • Lanny A. Eichert November 8, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    Alice, apples and oranges.
    ancient non-Biblical Greek … how different the modern English translation of Greek
    Now you violate TIME contexts as well.
    Your problem is contextual violations to suit your presupposition.
    Your practicing cultic deception. They have to disbelieve God preserves His Bible. The Bible is the word of God only as much as it is translated correctly and then they systematically discredit the transmission of it. Next they have a field day \taking text away from its context to prove their points. You’re into a cult. Did Mary disciple you?

    Luke 17: 29 & Revelation 9: 17 & 18
    But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
    And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.

    Alice, does purification fit here in these three verses? If not, why do you force it into these others? Clearly the use of the word is connectable to God’s wrath and destruction. Yes, it can be a figure of divine wrath as well as a literal furious burning, but only the context tells which.

    Stop violating the context for the sake of your supposition. Stop showing your stupid rebellion.

  • admin November 8, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    God can do what He wants when He wants. If the judgment that results in righteousness plays out with 1/3 of humanity being obliterated by lion-headed horses that spew fire, smoke, and brimstone out of their mouths, then so be it. I am more inclined to recognize IMAGERY. Either way, Sodom will be restored eventually.

    • Mary Vanderplas November 9, 2011 at 5:44 am

      The issue isn’t whether God is free to do as he chooses – which, I agree, he is. It’s whether the final victory of God can be expressed in anything other than symbolic language, i.e., whether it can be imagined and described using ordinary categories of thought and language. The answer – judging from the fact that John’s writing is clearly of the apocalyptic type – is no.

      • Lanny A. Eichert November 9, 2011 at 9:59 am

        God is quit capable of using ordinary categories of thought and language to express His final victory which terminates for the majority in a literal burning Lake of Fire tormentwithout remedy and the words of the Revelation 22: 11

        He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

        There’s nothing outside the realm of ordinary categories of thought and language in that.

        • Mary Vanderplas November 9, 2011 at 7:23 pm

          In announcing the final victory of God at the end of history, John presents pictures expressed in metaphorical language to convey what cannot be conveyed by using ordinary language.

          • Lanny A. Eichert November 9, 2011 at 9:08 pm

            It doesn’t take metaphorical language to throw somebody in the Lake of Fire or to lock up Satan in the Abyss, just plain English is quite sufficient to get the point made to humans.

  • Lanny A. Eichert November 8, 2011 at 6:53 pm

    Sodom will be restored eventually.

    And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which SPIRITUALLY is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. {Revelation 11: 8}

    Is that as close to literal burning rock, that is, literal brimstone, you are able to admit? Come on, Alice, say John intended his imagery to picture burning stones and not fire of purification. Say it, Alice.

    • Lanny A. Eichert November 8, 2011 at 7:49 pm

      Then I want you to say that God wants all humanity to know that the judgment plays out with 1/3 of humanity being obliterated by lion-headed horses that spew fire, smoke, and brimstone out of their mouths and will so be. God can do what He wants when He wants.

    • admin November 8, 2011 at 9:22 pm

      Ez. 16:53 “But someday I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and Samaria, and I will restore you, too.”

      • Lanny A. Eichert November 9, 2011 at 1:27 am

        It figures: what you imply to me that you take literally, you should have read the whole chapter: the rebuke of sinful Jerusalem; SINFUL Jerusalem will not be restored any more than her sisters, less sinful Sodom and less sinful Samaria, will be restored. 53 should be: “But someday (fat chance) I will restore the (sinful) fortunes of Sodom and Samaria, and I will restore you, too.” See verse 55 “former estate” thrice repeated.

        When thy sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall return to their former estate, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former estate, then thou and thy daughters shall return to your former estate.

        You didn’t get the contextual meaning again.

        The captivity of the wicked Jews, and their ruin, shall be as irrevocable as that of wicked Sodom and Samaria. (Matthew Henry)

        PS Verses 60 – 63 = a literal prophecy of a literally restored Davidic Kingdom of Israelites on earth in Jerusalem for a thousand years.

        • admin November 9, 2011 at 3:08 pm

          For thus said the Lord Jehovah: I have dealt with thee as thou hast done, In that thou hast despised an oath – to break covenant. And I – I have remembered My covenant with thee, In the days of thy youth, And I have established for thee a covenant age-during. And thou hast remembered thy ways, And thou hast been ashamed, In thy receiving thy sisters [Sodom and Samaria] – Thine elder with thy younger, And I have given them to thee for daughters, And not by thy covenant. And I – I have established My covenant with thee, And thou hast known that I [am] Jehovah. So that thou dost remember, And thou hast been ashamed, And there is not to thee any more an opening of the mouth because of thy shame, In My receiving atonement for thee, For all that thou hast done, An affirmation of the Lord Jehovah!”

          God receives the atonement on behalf of Jerusalem, and He includes Sodom and Samaria in His covenant with them (in contrast to their broken covenant with Him).

          The captivity of the Jews is irrevocable? Really? What about “all Israel will be saved”? Henry is correct, in a round-about way, because the captivity of Sodom and Samaria is not irrevocable (see v. 60-63 again), just as the captivity of Jerusalem (Israel) is not irrevocable.

          • Lanny A. Eichert November 9, 2011 at 6:14 pm

            You neither understand what Matthew Henry wrote, nor what I wrote, nor what God wrote. Verse 53 says NO restoration of the three will ever happen because God will not restore sin as per verse 55’s “former estate” (KJV).

            The context tells how self-righteous the people of Jerusalem have been in shaming the people of Sodom and Samaria and the Verse 61 sisters given as daughters is not literal cities or even literal peoples of Sodom and Samaria, but the REMEMBRANCE of their specific self-righteous statements that cause the Verse 63 silence of being confounded by the shame of self-righteousness.

            It figures: what you imply to me that you take literally, you should have taken figuratively. The twin cities start as Jerusalem’s sisters in figure as well as literal cities and peoples that never will be restored, but end as daughters totally in a figure, totally non-literal: two remembrances. Sisters that become daughters are so obviously figurative.

            The restoration of Jerusalem for the literal thousand year reign of the King of the Jews, the Lord Jesus Christ is descriptive of a humbled people still in their mortality, but converted to new righteous life and faith in Christ, their Messiah. That humility comes only in part thought the working shame of the previous seven years of Tribulation and the Great Tribulation forcing Israel’s remnant to recognize Jehovah is God of the earth indeed. The Elect of Israel will not only view their sins individually, but also nationally and hence own their “daughters,” their national self-righteousness. This is the “all Israel” that will be saved and the souls that previously died are not included. “All Israel” are those Israelites of that literal Millennial age. Here is a demonstration of all not being all without qualification.

  • Lanny A. Eichert November 9, 2011 at 2:17 am

    Luke 17: 29 & Revelation 9: 17 & 18
    But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
    And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.

    Alice, does purification fit here in these three verses?

    The QUESTION is not answered if it plays out literally so be it.

    DID GOD INTEND JOHN TO INTEND FIERY STONE AS THE MEANING OF BRIMSTONE?
    SAME LIKEWISE FOR LUKE?

  • Lanny A. Eichert November 9, 2011 at 2:40 am

    The same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and purification from heaven, and destroyed all their sinfulness and now they were too holy for sinful Lot to live among them and that’s why God told Lot to get away from that community.

    By these three which issued out of their mouths was the third part of men made dead to their sins, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the purification from God; so that the one third of men became saints of the Most High God and that’s why the rest of the men who were not made dead with Christ by these plagues of purification refused to believe.

  • Sisterlisa November 10, 2011 at 12:02 am

    Well, it’s painfully obvious when people choose to believe in torment by fire and those who have a larger hope for the finished work on the cross.

    Alice, I think you covered this quite well. I’m looking forward to the next article..so don’t let yourself get too sidetracked with the smoke and mirrors that so many others like to play with.

    • Lanny A. Eichert November 10, 2011 at 5:01 am

      Painfully obvious it will be for you in the eternal Lake of Fire for believing this so called Christian Universalism of Alice’s smoke and mirrors she so imaginatively invents.

      Face the Scriptures straight on literally and simply and get born again by the will of God if you could, or else you perish, PERISH, PERISH without remedy ever.

      • R. November 11, 2011 at 2:22 am

        Lanny, head on over to some fundamentalist torture blog. In case you haven’t noticed, no one really cares about any of the hateful, mythical nonsense you are spewing. Why not just go where you are wanted? Oh, I forgot, no one wants you…not even your own family. Wow, Lanny, Jesus must be very proud of you, he’s sure to give you some extra jewels in that crown of yours while jeer and sneer at all of the human race in that mythical lake of fire. Revelation is a dream, Lanny. The only thing stupider than reading a book full of dreams and “visions” is trying to build a doctrine on them. I suggest you take your message seriously and carry out an appropriate salvation plan. Organize and promote a plan calling for the worldwide sterilization (castration) of all human males. Based on your theology this would be the most merciful salvation plan possible…the prevention of all further human births. Will you be the first to volunteer for castration? If God will not stop his own system, then it’s up to mankind to stop God. What could be more merciful and loving than that? I’m normally not rude, but Lanny, take a hike. Give it up, you’re only embarassing yourself.

        • admin November 11, 2011 at 9:26 am

          I want Lanny here – he is always welcome to comment. Speak for yourself, R.

          • Sarah November 25, 2011 at 7:21 pm

            Yes, but I can see R.’s point! Lanny has a very self-righteous, sanctimonious, pious, hypocritical attidude! It’s people like him with his holier-than-thou preaching of “turn or burn” and “I believe, so I’m better than you and I’m going to Heaven and you’re going to hell” that have turned me away from God and Christianity over the years.

  • […] blog, Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Sin Wins, and I addressed the second objection in the blog, Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: English versus Greek.  Today, I will address the third objection, “…even after the open-gates passage of […]

  • Ron November 11, 2011 at 4:18 am

    Further Lanny, your myths all originated in that collection of writings that you reject as “uninspired”…the apochryphal and apocalytpic books. Those who you would refer to as “heathen” admit to inventing the doctrine of endless suffering to control the common rabble who could not be restrained. The Egyptians promoted endless fire for those whose “sins” were too much, while those whose “sins” were of a lesser nature were transmigrated. You know…Osiris, Cerberus the guard dog of “hell”? All those wonderful myths. The Hellenist Greeks borrowed it and remanufactured it, hence, Hades and Tartarus. Both are straight out of Homer’s fables. In his fables Hades was the brother of Zeus. The Hellenists epanded on their myths and had constructed a myth of the “blessed” within Hades residing in the Elysian Fields, while the tortured chatted across to them. So, you’ll have to admit that your saviour was teaching heathen/pagan mythology. Doesn’t look so good anymore does it?

    Plus, the writings where your mythical lake of fire originated all contradict themselves on the subject of retribution. Some teach ultimate restoration, some teach annihilation, some teach eternal torture. Unfortunately for you, this renders them completely invalid..so your myth has no foundation at all. Some Jews did pick up the Egyptian and Hellenist Greek myths, namely, the Pharisees. Josephus’ testimony is fully explicit as he declares that they promoted endless torture and imprisonment for those whose sins were “too much” and the weight of his testimony leans to them promoting transmigration as well. Similar to the Egyptians and the Hellenist Greeks. This can very well be why Jesus Christ warned to beware of the yeast of the Pharisees…and why he said that they made void the word of God by their traditions…doctrines not found in their own alleged scriptures, the old testament.

    In order for you to continue to promote your vile myths, you will have to step out and say that your old testament patriarchs were completely wrong and the heathen/pagan were right. Some lie and try to say the Egyptians and Hellenists picked it up from the Jews, but this will be immediately silenced by your man Moses’ long and unbroken silence on the myth. And, in case anyone has forgotten, he was actually in Egypt, so he would have been well acquainted with their mythology. Yet he seems to have forgotten to state it.

    You see Lanny, according to Hellenist Greek mythology people were being tortured and also gaining entrance to the Elysian Fields (which was transformed to Abraham’s bosom) long before your saviour ever came along. How did they get there without being “saved”? You seem to have overlooked that fact. If your saviour did actually teach heathen/pagan mythology then that doesn’t say very much for him does it?

    Based on your pagan/heathen theology of myths, if Jesus Christ really did mention “Mammon” (who was considered a god by the way), that would mean that by doing so he actually sanctioned the doctrine that Mammon really was a god! Also, if he really did mention Beelezebub, then just go ahead and admit that he was actually sanctioning the doctrine that the Phillistine god of flies (and filth) really was a god! It’s not looking so good anymore, based on your mythical theology is it?

    Zoroastriniasm was the source for your devil, who is different from “the satan”. “The satan” was actually an agent who did God’s bidding for him. Eternal torture was not present in any of “the satan’s” work. Heathen, Egyptian mythology and Hellenist Greek mythology were the sources for your “hell” and lake of fire. Some Jews borrowed these myths and incorporated them into their own system. That’s why Hades, Tartarus, a devil god who is in opposition to God, and even traces of transmigration are all found in the new testament of your holy book.

    Last, the only people who you hold any water to are the same ones who already agree with your theology of myths. I’ll give you a little fear to contemplate…you could end up losing your salvation and end up in your mythical lake of fire, yourself! You see, your theology is nothing but a leacking bucket even for you, yourself.

    Just go ahead and practise what you preach: 1-immediately promote abortion clinics so that all those unborn babies can be aborted and never have to possibly go to your lake of fire. 2-Start a Christian mandate for the worldwide sterilization of all human males (and even sterilization of females as a further precaution) so that no humans will ever have to hit your lake of fire. 3-As an intermediate solution, have Christians distribute prophylactics to every human on earth 4-For all your fundamentalist torture buddies, follow Andrea Yates’ loving example and immediately establish extermination houses for all those children under the magical, mythical “age of accountability” so that none of them have to potentially endure your lake of fire.

    Those neanderthals and cro-magnons must have been very surprised to find themselves burning in torture forever, without even a whisper of it to warn them, huh? Imagine the surprise of all those mammoth hunters who died to end up in everlasting torture just because they were born!

    Lanny, if you believe your own myths, then I expect you to do something effective about it. Follow the “salvation” steps outlined for you above, to save the human race. If God won’t stop this supposed system of his, then the world had better do something to stop God. Help the world to be spared from endless torture, Lanny, save them from God’s supposed system. Until you do this and practise seriously the myths you promote, just stop talking. Do some unbiased research, study to show yourself approved. If the fact that there about 30,000 different Christian theologies, sects, churches, and cults in the world isn’t enough proof that what I have written here is true, then I don’t know what it would possibly take for people to realize that. Wake up Lanny, it’s morning and the sun has come out.

    • admin November 11, 2011 at 9:37 am

      Thanks for your comments. I agree with some of what you say. It doesn’t appear, based on your harsh language, that your motivation for delivering these ideas is love or concern for Lanny. I could be wrong, though, because I can’t see your heart. Your sarcasm regarding castration/abortion, etc is fitting, because you attack the idea. Lanny’s not your enemy. You guys just disagree. Your fight is with a concept, not a person. I understand your frustration, but lighten up, Ron. Seriously, whatever truth exists in your message is being drowned out by a clanging gong.

  • Lanny A. Eichert November 11, 2011 at 8:17 pm

    R. Ron, your vehement response displays an intense rejection of God’s truth replaced with majestic human and satanic inventions. You’re really boiling over, not just still simmering. I wonder what will be the result in time to come: will you be dazzled by the night to day contrast and relent one day to truth? Just think about the variations existing in the untruths the human mind and Satanic forces can imagine to provide as contradictions to truth. Fantastic!!!

    Of course, R. Ron, you’ll never know if you’re not one of God’s Elect. You’ll never be dazzled by the night to day contrast and relent one day to truth. You’ll just go on being insensed and furiously enraged against God’s chosen people.

    Tell me, R. Ron, what parts of the Holy Bible do you believe are true?

  • Sarah November 12, 2011 at 10:52 pm

    Here is a link to a video on Youtube about how desctructive the doctrine of “eternal” torment is! It’s a very good video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5FH8kRNdJc

  • Jeremy November 16, 2011 at 4:50 pm

    “In the nearness of the shore, a harbor that metaphorically “burns” is associate with testing, kindness, the Spirit of God, and salvation. Indeed, the incense of God has the power to purify.”

    My concern with this interpretation is it leaves out that the “fire” of God also destroys and consumes, as though it is not equally as valid or more often used. Fire also destroys and if you were a Jew in Jerusalem…you knew that. (Is. 26:11; Heb. 10:27; Jude 7). I think the original/intended audience, especially in Revelation, grasped the horror of fire and I doubt they thought “oh he means purification, universalism, isn’t that nice.”

    Secondly, I think we underestimate the depravity of sin and its effect on humanity.

    Third, God is justice. Given the depravity of sin and God’s justice I think it is reasonable to think that God will justly reward the righteous and punish the wicked. I think the assumption that punishment isn’t “eternal” doesn’t recognize the sin’s horrible destructive power and its offense to God.

    Fourth, “aionion” is not mistranslated. It is an idiom that first century judeo-christians knew meant forever. It is used as such in scripture, understood as such by the early church fathers, and has been historically and universally understood by the orthodox Church. Eternal punishment is the counterpart of eternal life. No one questions the use of “aionion” for life…just for punishment apparently.

    Though I commend your heart, I am concerned that you and a few others have constructed a paradigm that you base on confusing rather plain texts and depart from the Church.

    • admin November 17, 2011 at 10:16 am

      No time to reply today… but I’ll get back with you soon. Thanks for the comments.

    • Lanny A. Eichert November 17, 2011 at 1:00 pm

      Thanks, Jeremy, for speaking sense to these people, if only they’d listen.

    • admin November 19, 2011 at 11:51 pm

      1. Did Jerusalem literally burn? Did the literal fulfillment already take place? I take seriously of the holiness of God. And I also don’t have tunnel vision when it comes to searching out all the ways that Hebrew/Greek words are used in scripture. I gave reason for seeing things the way I do, from the scripture, but the strongest reason is that the Spirit of God is speaking truth to me, showing me the difference between truth and tradition.
      2. Isn’t the depravity of sin is readily apparent to anyone who watches the news? The problem arrises when one doesn’t personally apply the concept to himself or herself, seeing that each individual is a participant in the corruption. Can something be so depraved as to be unredeemable? Did Jesus accomplished His mission to seek and save the lost, even the most depraved lost, the “lostest” lost?
      3. Can you show me one scripture that says God is justice? You will find that God is love, and God is this and that and the other, but you will never find that God is justice. God is just (verb) not justice (noun). What God does (verb) He does because of Who He is (noun), not the other way around. Do God’s actions determine His character, or do they demonstrate His character? Do God’s action EVER contradict His character? Eternal consequences for finite choices by people who never asked to be created in the first place, were born into a world full of sin, and were born with the natural inclination to sin – this is not justice, not even close. If you want to know about justice, see “an eye for an eye”. If the wages of sin were eternal torment, then wouldn’t Jesus have to die and go to Hell forever in order to redeem us? Is sin’s horrible destructive power is any match for God’s awesome redemptive power?
      4. Why did Justinian put up such a fuss about the word? Why did translators (even in his day) refuse to always translate the word eternal as he demanded? As long as death remains, then in order to live without dying, the life must be enduring, hence, age-during life. If death no longer remains, as the scriptures indicate it is eventually true, then life is no longer threatened, and there is no more need or even meaning for age-abiding life. Punishment is age-abiding, just as life is age abiding. Punishment lasts until it is no longer relevant. Sin and death, the only concepts that could “separate” us from relationship with God are dealt with completely, both for life and punishment, the negative implications dissolve by definition of a new reality in which such things have no reference point or meaning any more. Eternal means no beginning and no end, self existent. Who fits this description but God and God’s attributes? To ascribe eternity to a human being is completely misunderstand the difference between immortal, incorruptible, etc. with eternal. There is a difference. One depends on God, and one is God.

      The reason I departed from the church (institutional) was because the church (institutional) had departed from God. I could not follow the church (institutional) and follow the Shepherd at the same time – they were going in two different directions. Now, I don’t go to church (institutional), because I have recognized that I AM THE CHURCH. Anyone who is a believer is the church, wherever and whenever. Imagine what life would be like if every believer were not limited to a few hours on Sunday morning in a box – if they saw themselves for who they are in Christ, ministers of reconciliation with Good News for the whole world. I am a missionary to the church, just like all the history of Israel killing her prophets, I’m speaking truth and getting slammed by those whose hearts are ruled by the irrational fear that I, a fallible human being, can somehow screw up God’s plans.

      • Jeremy November 20, 2011 at 10:19 pm

        1. I think that most historians would say that Jerusalem literally burnt to the ground. Yet it is apparent that context is alluding to something far more serious than Roman soldeirs burning down Jerusalem. But the original hearers and readers of the Gospel knew what Jesus meant by fire…bad things. Secondly, no offense Alice but you’re not the only one who hears from the Holy Spirit and believes they are getting direct revelation from God. There have been countless voices that have come before you who have ordained themselves the profound barers of truth. Everyone’s gotten it wrong for the past 2000 years except Alice. Yet the Catholic Church, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox affirm the doctrine of hell and eternal punishment. Thats an ecumenical statement. Yet we should all abandon the teachings of trustworthy pillars of our faith for your own interpretation of scripture. The Church has always affirmed that truth is not just revealed in interpretation. Vincent of Lerin pointed to the fact that if that were the case we would be in trouble because there is as many different interpretations as there are interpreters. You’re just another interpreter who thinks they have it all figured out even if it flies in the face of core Christian teaching that is age old and tried. Now that may make you feel like a cool rebel but it should be a huge warning sign with bells and whistles to all that read this blog. I know that in this day and age words like “tradition” and “orthodox” are curse words but the Church has always cherished such things because they guard immature sheep that are easily led astray by heresies and schismatics.

        2. You say “Can something be so depraved as to be unredeemable?” Of course not but don’t try to give the allusion that this is what orthodoxy is teaching. What the Church has always taught is that even the most depraved is offered salvation…available to all who will accept.
        You say “Did Jesus accomplished His mission to seek and save the lost, even the most depraved lost, the “lostest” lost?” Absolutely. You would like to give the impression that we don’t think so but that’s not what the Church has always taught once again. Yet they have a part to play…reject or receive.

        3. God is true and perfect justice…not the frail justice of humans. His justice is pure and right…if you like it or not. If you approve of how God does things or not. I care little about what Alice thinks justice is. I care about what God reveals in his word and affirmed for centuries by the Church fathers and mothers (for Mary:)) If you don’t think it’s fair that people who choose to remain in sin and reject Christ are punished eternally in hell…it doesn’t change the fact that this is how it has been revealed from the mouth of Jesus. The answer isn’t to explain it away but to come to terms with it. The problem is that we don’t have a sense of how criminal disobeying God is without the blood of Christ. God is justice (noun, adjective and verb). God heals…God is health. God provides peace…God is peace. God provides pure justice…God is justice. God is mercy. But God’s justice and his mercy never neutralize each other. Gods mercy goes as far as his justice allows and his justice goes as far as his mercy allows. His mercy has to be justifiable.

        I’m sorry that you departed from the Church…this says alot about why you interpret things the way you do. It seems sort of arrogant… people who feel that they are just going to go off on their own and do there own thing. Even though Paul says not to forsake the assemby. This is not scriptural behavior and was not accepted in the early Church. Jesus continued in the synagogue as did the apostles and early Christians (institution) as you like to title it which I think is an unfair term that is used to convey negativity. I sense you may not like the Church because you do not like healthy Christian submission (I may be wrong but I wonder). The Church has always been a community, a family, a gathering and had elements of organization structured around Jewish synagogue and worship as early as Justin Martyr and Polycarp.

  • admin November 20, 2011 at 11:50 pm

    Let me make sure I understand you, Jeremy.

    You believe that tradition and orthodoxy should be trusted to guard immature sheep.

    Let me remind you that tradition and orthodoxy played a big part in Christ’s crucifixion. People, all people, are stupid sheep, including you and me, and even the disciples and apostles. There is one Shepherd, and where He goes, I follow. I am not telling people to believe Alice, I am telling people to ask God Who He is and what He does, and to listen to Him. The churches you mention, that affirm eternal torment in Hell – have you looked into what other wrong/false/detestable things they have affirmed over the centuries? If they should not have been trusted then, how can you be so sure that they can be trusted now?

    You believe that we have a “part to play” in our own salvation?

    Jesus specifically said, “You did not choose me, I chose you.” To believe is something “granted” to us “for the sake of Christ”. It is “not because of our own works, but because of His own purpose and grace, which He gave us in Christ Jesus, before the ages began.” He says, “I have been found by those who did not seek me, I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.” And “no one understands, no one seeks for God.” Salvation is “not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. If we play a part in our own salvation, then we have something to do (works) and a reason to boast (because we did our part, when others did not).

    You believe that God is justice.

    Did you do your homework? Did you find that verse that says, “God is justice”? What is the reference? Like I said, God is just, but God is not justice. God is loving AND God is love. There’s a reason that one is specified and not the other, that is, “Mercy shall triumphs over judgment.”

    I interpret things the way I do, because it is painfully obvious to me that the institutional church is wrong. I was still heavily involved in the church before and after God opened my eyes concerning Amazing Hope. It wasn’t until the institution utterly rejected me that I discovered how unloving the most loving people can be, when they are ruled by fear of disapproval. The church is a community, like you said. But a community, a real community, is not relegated to a few hours per week on Sundays, in which the members are a giant ear listening to one fallible mouth slander His glorious name. The church is believers, anywhere and anytime they bump elbows, whether they agree with each other or not. The unity is based in love, not an organization. The authority is not in a title, it is in the power of His Spirit, which is given to each of us in certain measure for certain occasions. Submission to authority, when that authority is not in submission to God, is a situation to which God sometimes temporarily calls people, for His own reasons, but never so that the submissive person can join with that authority in committing sin against God. That’s where I draw the line, and where you should as well. The organization is a human construct, which God, in His mercy still associates with, in the same way He associated with Israel when they were slaves in Egypt. He did not forget them as they spent their days making bricks out of straw. And don’t forget that when He brought them out, they wanted to go back. Why? Because that is what they knew – like tradition and orthodoxy – it is what people are accustomed to, they know what to expect. No surprises. God-in-a-box.

    • Rachel November 21, 2011 at 8:30 am

      Well said Alice. Miss you darlin.

      • admin November 22, 2011 at 8:33 am

        I miss you too. You are in my thoughts and often. 🙂

    • Sarah November 25, 2011 at 12:05 pm

      Very well said! This is a very good blog.

      • admin November 26, 2011 at 10:40 am

        Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment.

  • Hellbound? « www.whatgoddoes.com October 2, 2012 at 7:45 am

    […] Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: English vs Greek […]

  • Delayed « www.whatgoddoes.com December 7, 2012 at 3:15 am

    […] All = Some, Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Now or Never, Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Sin Wins, Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: English vs Greek, Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: In This Life, Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Saved by Who’s […]

  • Do you believe the hells are real? - February 21, 2016 at 8:35 am

    […] Please read more about the Lake of Fire here. […]

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.